ED 127 900 HE 008 217
Troutmaii^ James 6*
Faculty Perceptions of College Governance.
50p.; Ed.D. Practicum^ Nova University
BF-$0.83 HC-$2.06 Plus Postage.
Administrative Organization; *College AdminiatraticTij
♦College Faculty; Decision Baking; ♦Governance;
♦Higher Education s Policy Formation; Power Structure;
School Involvement; School Surveys; ♦Teacher
York College of Pennsylvania^ which has moved from a
junior college to a four- year institution in the last decade^ has
responded to accreditation reports that suggested changes in the
college's governing structure. A review of the literature shcii^jd that
faculty should participate in governance on a shared-authority basis.
The study was designed to survey the faculty to see how they
perceived the governance of the college. The i^urvey was divided into
areas of leaderships activation ^ communication^ interaction ^
decision-making r setting goals^ and feedback control. Particular
recommendations were i-ade in areas that were found deficient. The
results of the survey demonstrated that the faculty perceived the
governance strucxure somewhere between the benevolent authoritative
and consultative forms. The ratings^ calculated froa highest to
lowest, were communication, setting goals, interaction, leadership,
motivation, feedback controls, and decision-making. The highest rated
question concerned the accuracy of upwards communications; the
lowest, the level at which decisions were formally made. Specific
recommendations were made for each area involved that had serious
deficiencies. In general, the recommendations were to make the
governance structure or the college more participatory.
♦ Documents acguired by ERIC include many informal unpublished ♦
♦ materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ♦
♦ to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal ♦
♦ reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality ♦
♦ of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available ♦
♦ via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDHS) . EDRS is not ♦
♦ responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ♦
♦ supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. , ♦
Troutman, James G, Faculty Perceptions of College
Governance o Research Practicum presented to Nova University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Educati )n, July, 1976,
York College of Pennsylvania has made some major
changes during the past decade. The most major being that
of moving from a junior college to a ifotir-year institution.
The past two accreditation reports have suggested changes
be made in the governing structure of the college. A review
of the literature has shown that faculty should participate
in governance on a shared authority basis.
The study was designed to survey the faculty to see
how they perceived the governance of the college. The
survey was divided into areas of leadership, motivation,
communication, interaction, decision-making, setting goals,
and feedback control. Particular recommendations were made
in areas which were found de;' - -lent.
The results of the survey demonstrated that the
faculty perceived the governance structure of York College
of Pennsylvania somewhere between the benevolent authoritative
and consultative forms. The ratings as cal^^^l^t^^ ft^^
highest to lowest were communication, setti^^S ^^^Is,
interaction, leadership, motivation, feedba^^^ ^^ntrol^^
decision-making. The highest rated questioi^ ^^^Cerne^
accuracy of upwards communications while th^ lov/^^^ on
the level at which decisions were formally t^^^^e^
Specific reconaendations were made ^^r ^^^^ ^^ea
invol.ved that had serious deficiencies;. In ^^^^^ral,
recommendations we;^e to make the governance ^^^e^ure
the college niO^?e participatory.
A STUDY OF FACULTY PERCEPTION
OF COLLEGE GOVERNANCE
James G. Troutman, M. A.
York College of Pennsylvania
DR. KENNETH VARCOE
A PRACTICUM PRESENTED TO NOVA UNXVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS, FOR THE
DEGREE. OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRACTICUM EVALUATION FORM li
LIST OF TABLES vii
National Governance Trends 1
Faculty Invol>7'ement in Governance 2
Faculty Perceptions of Governance ... o ... # 3
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE 4
The Need for Faculty Participation 5
Governance by Consent « 5
' Competency and Diversity of
Participants . « o 7
Motivation Research o 8
How the Faculty Should Be Involved o . 10
Justification for the Study 12
PROCEDURES . . . . o o 17
Population Used . . o . . . o . « • . 17
Statistical Method Used 18
Limitations and Assumptions 18
RESULTS . . • 19
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS • * . • o 22
General Discus£Sion 22
Leadership • • • • .i» • 23
Interaction . o . » » . . . . 28
Decision-Making . • . • o ^ . . 29
Setting Goals ....... ^ - • 31
Feedback Control 32
Potential for Improvement " • 35
BIBLIOGRAPHY o 37
Faculty Questionnaire □ □ 42
Cover Letter to Questionnaire . . . o 43
Practicum Proposal Approval 44
Peer Reader Form ^5
LIST OF TABLES
1. Representative Changes at
York College of Pennsylvania \, . 13
2. Results of Survey in Percent 20
3. Table of Arithmetic Means 2i
Over the past decade York College of Pennsylvania
has experienced major growth. The institution that was
formerly York Junior College became a baccalaureate degree
granting institution in 1968 and graduated its first senior
class in 1970. During this period the student and faculty
populations have increased by more than fifty perceiat.
The participation in governance by the faculty has
also increased proportionat during the past decade. An
academic senate, academic council, administrative council,
and board of trustee committees were formed. All of these
organizations have faculty representation. The purpose of
this paper was to measure how the faculty perceives the
current governance structure of York College. This percep-
tion was used as a basis for comparison with the current
literature on college and university governance. Specific
recommendations were then made to improve the governance
system of the college^
National Governance Trends
The recent changes in governance at York College
are not unique. They have been occurring on a nation wide
basis • Olsen (32:361) commenting on these changes stated:
Higher education in America has undergone a pro-
found alteration in scope and nature in the last decade.
The question of who should govern what aspects of the
university has presented the institution with a series
of interlocking paradoxial problems of college
The change in administrators role in governance as
it relates to the faculty is addressed by Richardson (38:16):
The past three yeari^ have been momentous oiiies for
administrators. Dur^jcig this period of time, we have
witnessed a revolution in attitudes cor?ceming the role
of the faculty in policy formulation. The question
today is no longer one of whether faculty will be
involved but rather the more serious issue of what the
role of the administrator is likely to be should the
current trend in the direction of separate faculty
organizations for the purpose of negotiating salary
and working conditions continue.
Faculty Involvement in Governance
The need for faculty involveir;ent in governance is
well established. Dykes (13:5) points out:
Effective faculty participation in the academic
dec is ion -making process is essential. The complex
problems confronting institutions of higher education
everywhere require the best efforts of the best minds
available if they are to be resolved satisfactorily,
Corson (9:97) points out the difference between other
organizations and the academic community is, "The authority
and responsibility placed in the faculty, as a body, by
tradition, by custom, or by formal bylaw or regulation."
The role of active faculty involvement in the
governance of an institution is not contrary to the purpose
of that institution. The central objective of education is
the translation of the capabilities and talents of the
faculty into significant educational results* Most deci-
sions made on a college campus have a direct bearing on
this objective. To the making of decisions the faculty
will have both a valid concern and a capability to make
important contributions, John Millett (28:102) supports
this idea when he states, "The faculty member does not
consider himself an employee of the college but a partner
in the operation of the organization.''
Perhaps one of the oldest and most eloquent pleas
for democratic participation is given by Aristotle (4:123):
When there are many, each can bring his share of
goodness and moral prudence; and when all meet together
the people may thus become something in the nature of a
single person, who - as he has many feet, many hands
and many senses^ - may also have many qualities of
character and intelligence.
Faculty Perceptions of Governance
To measure the faculty perception of governance at
York College of Pennsylvania a survey was conducted, Tha
measuring tool was the Likert Scale (19:197-211).
The questionnaire was designed so that each of the
twenty questions has four possible responses. They are
associated with the authoritative, benevolent authoritative,
consultative, and participatory patterns of administration.
The questionnaire was divided into seven areas of concern.
They are leadership, motivation, communication, interaction,
decision-making, goal setting, and feedback control. Each
area of concern has been evaluated and compared to the
current literature. Implications and recommendations have
been made from this comparison.
BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE
When the topic of faculty participation in college
governance is brought up there appears two questions. Why
should the faculty participate in college governance and
how should the faculty participate in this governance?
Each of these topics have been examined.
Many authors have written in favor of faculty
involvement in governance. Among them are Ikenberry
(17:371-374), Livingston (21:192-194), and Richardson
(38:22). Several authors have surveyed faculty and reported
on the results. Perhaps the most comprehensive is the
American Association of University Professors Report
(2:62-81). Others to use this method are Corson (9), Dykes
(13) and Mason (23). Other authors have supported faculty
involvement in governance from the point of view that
teaching is a profession. Among these authors is Bidig
(6:41). Faculty pressure for an increased role in govern-
ance has been used by Livingston (21:191-192) and
The Need For Faculty Participation
Four basic arguments can be given to justify the
need to have faculty participate in college governance.
First, the tenet proclaimed by John Locke in that govern-
ment is established by the consent of those governed.
Second, the Jeffersonian ideal that the competence of the
ordinary citizen is a valid claim for participation in
government o Third, recent research in the behavioral
sciences has been demonstrating the great importance of
involving personnel of an organization more fully in the
decision-making process. And fourth, participation in
governance by groups can improve the quality of the decision
made. Each of these arguments has been considered in turn.
Governance by Consent . There are several ways one
can approach the idea that government is established by the
consent of those governed. Perhaps the most common is that
of trying to satisfy the pressures of the respective
interest groups. Richardson (38:18) first points out that
authority is by consent when he states, "let us draw some
brief concliiblons concerning the implication that authority
depends upon the assent of those governed." Later in that
same article, after observing that the administrator has
been celegated the authority by the board of control, he
Administrators are employed to provide leadership
ani to ensure smoothly functioning institutions. A
failure to carry out these purposes - whatever the
reason and regardless of the principles involved - will
result in a lack of confidenc in the administrator and
in his eventual replacement.
In a different article (39:21) Richardson observes
that increasingly, the combination of student and faculty
pressures has caused the consideration of the participatory
model of governance. Corson (10:437-438) also recognizes
the: size and role of the faculty when he reports:
The reasoning underlying the proposal that such a
mechanism (participatory governance) is needed rest on
the fact that the college or university must be recog-
nized for what it is - a political commiinity. By
"political community" is meant that the institution is
made up of several factions, each of which possesses
parochial views and the power to disrupt or endanger^
the institutions operations. Decisions that will stick,
that is, that will harness the zeal or at least be
accepted, can only be made through a process in which
the several factions are consulted, can voice their
opinions, and exercise an influence proportionate to
the competence they bring to each particular decision.
Other authors have also written about participation
as a means for obtaining acceptance of resulting decisions.
Thompson (46:161) states, "Participation by all groups can
benefit the pursuit of the university's purpose by helping
to secure willing and informed acceptance of decisions,"
Competency and Diversity of Participants , The
competency and diversity of those who participate in the
governance process has often been presented as a favorable
argument, Thompson (46:159) claims, "that the combination
of knowledge and perspectives of a group yields wiser
decisions than those made by single individuals." Harold
Wo Dodds (.12:97) extends this argument. The fundamental
reason why the faculty should participate at the highest
policy level, "is the cardinal truth that if an institution
is to prosper, it must utilize the intellectual application
and imaginative thinking of more than the president, vice-
presidents, and deans,"
When Henderson (15:80) writes about governance
through group participation in decision-making he discusses
the collegial tradition of colleges:
Colleges and universities have a strong tradition
of collegial spirit and action. The faculty in many
senses are peers of administrators. They are prof es-
sional men and women, and each is expert in his own
area of knowledge. If one looks at the classroom or
the laboratory where the education and the research
take place, it is clear that the professor must play
a strong role in determining goals and methods. It
can also be contended that since the student is the
learner, he too will do a better job of learning if he
helps map out the goals and the methods Thus it can
be reasoned that the professors and also the students
should have a wider participation in determining the
over-all goals, the program, and the evaluation
The diversity of the participants also plays an important
part in dec is ion -making in a participatory model of govern-
ance. This is brought out by Thompson (46:160) when he
writes about improving the quality of decisions. Such
decisions are likely to be made more wisely if the diversity
of various members who contribute to the college's aims are
brought to bear on the issues. He also points out that
this is particularly critical in a period of rapid change
and intense questioning of the nature of the educational
Motivation Research . Among the theorist in motiva-
tion research is A. H. Maslow who has formulated a positive
theory of human motivation. He discusses (22:90-91) that
satisfaction of the self-esteem need, the desire for
reputation or prestigue, status, recognition, importance
or appreciation, leads to feelings of self-confidence,
worth and adequacy of being useful and necessary in the
world. Douglass McGregor expands on Maslow' s ideas when he
Finally - a capstone, as it where, on the
hierarchy - there are the needs for self- fulfillment.
These are the needs for realizing one's own poten-
tialities, for continued self development, for being
creative in the broadest sense of the term.
Herzberg (16:57) points out that satis fiers are
achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility,
advancement and growth. Richardson and Bender (41:40)
recognize the importance of motivation in the shared
authority model of governance when they write, "The strength
of the shared authority model rest with the values they
promote, their flexibility in dealing with the need for
change and their ability to motivate members to function at
higher levels of committment."
Joughin (18:204-205) suggest that faculty partici-
pation in institutional governance can play a major part in
recruiting nev; and retaining esteemed faculty. Likert
(19:46) points out that, "Shifts toward system four (par-
ticipatory) are accompanied by long range improvements in
productivity, labor relations, cost and ea • yngs^-' Perhaps
Richardson, Blocker, and Bender (42: 112) sum it up best
when discussing their participatory model of governance:
Objectives are developed jointly, with the result
that there is substantial committment to their achiev-
ment by all members within the organization, and cor-
responding satisfaction when they are achieved. Thus,
access to the satisfaction of higher-level n6eds is not
exclusively the province of administrators but is shared
with: faculty and students.
We have just seen the need for faculty ^^^o^ygjne^^*^
in governance. An examination of the idea of ^^^^^^ent
consent, the Jeffersonial idea of the competently 0:f ^.^^
people, and the behavioral science approach to ^^ti^^^j^^^^i
theory have established the necessity and desi^*® fo^ ^
participatory model of governance. Wsi now tun^ to ^.^^ ^bV^
in which this involvement can be structured.
How the Faculty Should Be Involved .
The American Association of University ^^^^^ssor^
and its sister organizations, the American Coun^^^l. Ot^
Education and the Association of Governing Boa^^s
Universities and Colleges have always been acti^^
determining the role of faculty in the governaJ^^^ 0;f
institutions. The American Association of Uni^^^sj^^.^
Professors has long had a standing committee, ^^^^Ittee 'f^
that addresses itself to college government, ^^^^^ps tb^
most used document concerning college goveman^^® Is ^he
American Association of University Professotg^ ^^^^Sra^eig^^
o n Government of Colleges and Universities . ' *^^^t doct^""
ment (3:378) the faculty's role is clearly poii»*^^d ^^^^ llie
prime responsibilities of the faculty are in a^^^s ^u^^"
riculum, subject matter and methods of instruction^
search, faculty status and those aspects of stt^^^nt nfe
which relate to the educational process. The faculty sets
the requirements for degrees. Appointment, promofcion,
tenure and dismissal are primarily a faculty responsibility.
And finally, faculty should actively participate in the
determination of policy and procedures that determine
salary and salary increases.
This same document also presents a structure for
faculty participation, "Agencies of faculty participation
in the government of the college or university should be
established at each level where faculty responsibility is
present o" This is to point out that both structures and
procedures should permit joint participative action by all
components of the university.
Mason (23:44) supports the 1966 statement when he
discusses the implies shared authority:
The faculty and the administration particularly
participate jolatly in influence and dec is ion -making,
.o.the model voices the faculty predominant in issues
where its special knowledge or status so require.
The American Association of University Professors
has long believed in faculty participation in college
governance. The first recommendation of Committee T*s
final report on their 1953 study points out this fact very
The committee wishes again to suggest, as it did
following the study in 1939, that accrediting agencies
be urged to recognize, among the criteria for the
judgement of educational institutions, the importance
of procedures which provide adequately for faculty
participation wherever such participation will be
useful. The kinds of consultation employed within a
college or university are exceedingly significant as
evidence of the quality of the intellectual environment
with which the specific institution provides members of
The American Association of University Professors
appears to ::e seeking support from accrediting agencies.
Other groups have supported them in their quest. Most
recently the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (8:41)
has made the following recommendation a high priority.
"Faculties should be granted, where they do not already
have it, the general level of authority as recommended by
the American Association of University Professors."
There are other writers who have described specific
structures for participatory governance models. It was not
the purpose of this papo.r to examine these various models.
What has been established is that a participatory model is
desirable and that many groups and individuals have suppor-
ted this tenant.
Justification for the Study
This brings us to the question of what has happened
at York Qollege of Pennsylvania that has led us to make
The changes that have occured at York College
during the past several years have been drastic. Table 1
illustrates several areas of concern to the college that
have been typical of these changes. These figures were
taken from Data Presented for Consideration by the Commis -
sion of Higher Education , Middle States Association , (11)
and The Presidents Report to the College, 1974-1975 , (27) .
During the past seven years the budget has increased by
360 7o, the number of volxraies in the library by 150%, the
number of full time faculty by 507o and the number of
students (full time equivalent) by 53%. These changes can
be extended to all phases of the institution.
Representative Changes at
York College of Pennsylvania
~— — ^__^Academic Year
Area of Concern "•"■~>-~-.....,^
Faculty (Full Time)
Students (Full Time Equivalent
During this period there has been similar growth
in faculty participation in the governance of the college.
In 1968 an Academic Senate was formed. This senate consist
of all full time faculty, top level administrators and
student, representatives. Much of the decision-making
and policy-setting of the college has been done in the
fourteen committees of this senate. In 1972 the Academic
Coxincil was formed. This council consist of the Dean of
Academic Affairs and the nine department chairmen. This
body has been responsible for a large portion of the
academic policy of the collegeo In 1975 the faculty placed
voting members on all of the Board of Trustee cominittees
with the exception of the Budget Committee.
It is also important to note that the Middle States
Reports of 1969 and 1971 both suggest improvements in the
governance structure of the college. The 1969 report (36)
It is recommended that the Board of Trustees and
administrative staff demonstrate their interest in
tinders tanding students and their problems by (1) estab-
lishing clearly defined channels of commxmication for
the college, and (2) providing opportunity for effective
student participation in institutional affairs.
Since the college was in a period of transition from a
two-year institution to a four-year institution it was to
be re-ev^Iuated in 1971. The 1971 report (37:3-4) contains
the following section on Administration and Governance:
As the college moves into the higher complexities
implicit in its new adventures, we sense that careful
thought should be given to more effective (in terms of
the new complexities) distribution and delegation of
authority and responsibility throughout the formal
administrative structure, and among those in the
faculty and student body who hold quasi-administrative
posts. The college is deliberately moving from a
necessary emphasis on physical development toward a
commitment to find a place in the community of four-
year colleges, and this at a time when such institution
are being told that their future existence as private
colleges will depend on their unique qualities and
contributions. It seems essential, therefore, to the
future of the college as a unique institution, that the
President and his top administrators have time for
contemplation regarding the educational course that is
being set. In short the President and his colleagues
must have time to "waste" on educational philosophy.
Beyond this, we sense that, correctly or not,
faculty and students do not see themselves as being
significantly involved in those dec is ions -making
processes that relate to their roles here. It is not
clear, nor does it matter especially, why this is so.
* What matters is how to effect a cure. For, if the
administration is to have meditative time, responsibil-
ity and authority must be shared.
The formal structure for implementing such sharing
of responsibility and authority seems already to exist
to a considerable degree. Yet, the relationship among
the offices of the President, the Deaa of the
and the Dean of Academic Affairs is for some reason -
unclear in practice; the lower echelons are confused on
the source of decisions and the proper^
action in such areas as, for example, persoimer^^^d^^
isions , office as s ignments , and budge tar^^ .
Every effort needs to be exerted to m
channels of decision making j to modify tliCT
wise, and to use them with confidence.
These reports suggested specific changes be made.
The Middle States Association will be re-evaluating York
College in 1977 • It is important to demonstrate to this
association that there have been sincere efforts to improve
the governance structure of the college. If the faculty
perceive themselves as being significantly involved in the
decision-making process then this should be considered
a m;sjor improvement. The communication structure was also
critized as a possible cause of some of the problem. The
faculty's perception of the current communication procedures
will also be of value.
In the fall of 1976 the current college president
will be retiring after eighteen years of service to the
institution as chief officero A new president has been
selectedo The perceptions of the faculty in the area of
college governance can be of great importance in allowing
a new executive to gain the confidence and support of his
faculty. It is hoped that this report will be of some
value to this end.
The method that was used to determine how the
faculty perceived the governance of York College of
Pennsylvania was a survey. The instrvraient that was used
was the Likert Scale (19: 197-211) •
The questionnaire has been designed so that each
of the twenty questions has four possible responses. They
are associated with the exploitive authoritative, benev-
olent authoritative, consultative, and participative
patterns of administration. The questionnaire has the
questions divided into seven areas of concern. They are
leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, decision
making, goal setting and feedback control. Each area of
concern has been evaluated and compared to the current
literature. Implications and recommendations have been
made from this comparison.
Population Used v
The survey was distributed to each of the full time?/
faculty members of the college. This included, department
chairmen, present and past presidents of the Academic
Senate, iahd committee chairmen.
Statistical Method Used
The restilts of the survey were first tabulated.
Those tabulations were then delt with in two ways. First,
the tabulations were changed to percentages so that compar-
isons could be made. Second, the exploitive authoritative,
benevolent authoritative, consultative, and participatory
patterns, were assigned nximerical values of one, two, three
and four respectivelyo An arithmetic mean was calculated
for each of twenty questions, each of the seven areas of
concern and a total arithmetic mean for all responses was
Limitations and Assumptions
Two basic limitations occurred. First, only about
fifty- two percent of the questionnaires were returned o
Second, and related, the small sample size and the peculi-
arities of the group limit the generalizations that can be
There were several assumptions made. It was neces-
sary to assimie that the faculty has an accurate perception •
of the governance structure of the college* It was assumed
that a governance structure can be measured and that the
Likert Scale would be an accurate tool with which to make
this meaisi^rement. It was assumed that the limitations would
not adversly effect the overall results of the survey.
And finally, it was assumed that if a research project is
designed with care and executed in a similar manner, that
the results will be accurate and of value.
The results of the survey have been tabulated and
are shown on Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2, on page twenty,
contains percentage tabulations for each of the responses
to each of the questions on the questionnaire. Those who
did not complete a particular question were not counted in
the compilation. The percentages are rounded to the nearest
whole number and adjusted so that the sum of the responses
for any particular question totals one hundred percent.
Table 3, on page twenty-one, contains the arithmetic
means. Columns one, two, three, and four were assigned
numerical values of one, two, three, and four respectively.
These numbers were then used to compute arithmetic means.
The arithmetic mean was computed for each question and is ^
listed in the first column of Table 3. The arithmetic mean
for each of the areas of concern was computed and is listed
in the second colxmn of that same table. An arithmetic mean
was computed for all responses and was found to be 2.34.
Results of Survey in Percent
How much oonfidenot ii «howfi
■ 5 •
How friM do thfv feet to talk
to luQcriori about job?
Are subordinate' i^at
•ought and ut9d. if vwrihy?
Is pftfdommant uie nvdaof
1 ) ftaf . 2) threats. 3) plJmt^•
mant, 4) rtwardi, 5) inwolyffnent?
5) Wh«n» rasponfibfliiY fait
for ach^avtng org. ^calt?
6) WTiai! ii the dirac. of »ofo. flow?
' 7) How it downward comm. acoapted?
8) Hdw accura)* it upward oo^om.?
9) How wall do lupartors know
problems faced by iubord«natat7
10) What is Character of inter-
1 1 ) How much cooperative teamwork
At what level are (decisions
WhJt IS the onqin of t^chntcai
and professional knowledgtf used
in deci$»on makmo^
Are suborriinai<*5 involved tn
ri«»ctsiO'U rebted to tneir work'
What does decision making pfo
ce^s contritjute to iTx>tivatiO(v'
.16) How are org. goals established^
<^ ^ 17) How'much coveit resistance
' to goafs IS present?
18) How concentrated are review
and control functions'
J? 191 Is there an mformal organization
2 a resisting the formal one?
Z o ■ .
20) What are cost, productivity.
and other control data used lor ?
"^^bie of Arithmetic Means
for this Question
for this Concern
The seven questions to receive the highest means
were considered above average. They were 2, 6, 7, 8, 11,
17, and 19. The seven questions to receive the lowest
means were considered below average. They were 3, 5, 9, 10,
12, 13, and 18. The remaining six questions in the middle
were considered average. They were 1, 4, 14, 15, 16, and
20. The question receiving the highest mean, 3.00, was
number eight concerning upward communications. The question
receiving the lowest mean, 1.62, was number twelve concern-
ing the level at which decisions are formally made.
The two highest areas of concern were Communications
with 2.55 and Setting Goals with a 2.52. The two lowest
areas of concern were Making Decisions with a 2.17 and Feed-
back Control with a 2.25. The three areas of concern in
the middle were Leadership, Motivation and Interaction.
The arithmetic mean of 2.34 for all responses
places the overall governance structure, as it is per-
ceived by the faculty, between the benevolent authoritative
and consultative patterns of management □ This does not
seem to indicate that the faculty perceives a participatory
form of governance at York College of Pennsylvania. If one
accepts the pleas of the literature for a participative
structure there appears to be room for improvement at York
College. The researcher will make nine specific recommen-
dations towards this end.
It is important to note the significance of a
research project conducted in the California Community
College system by L. C. Riess (43).- In a survey of both
administrators and faculty he found that faculty perceived
' less faculty participation and recommended a higher degree
of involvement. On the other hand, administrators perceived
a higher level of participation on behalf of the faculty.
Leadership . In order to recognize the implications
and to make recctr(?raendations concerning this survey, each of
the areas of concern on the questionnaire were studied.
The arithmetic mean of the leadership area was 2.29,
slightly below average. The question concerning confidence
shown in subordinates was slightly below average while the
question of subordinates talking with superiors was well
above average. Question three on the use o£ subordinates'
ideas was well below average.
When Budig (6:31) writes about educational leader-
ship he has the following to say:
No single function of the administration is more
Important than articulation of institutional goals
and problems in need of resolution. This includes
the perceptiveness to recognize broad consensus on
institutional or unit mission when such agreement
exist, and establishing the mechanisms to arrive at
such a consensus when it does not already exist.
Leadership style is also Important to authors such
as Herzberg (16:55), Reddin (35:229) and Richardson (41:1-9).
Llkert (19:103) when writing about cooperative behavior
states the following principle:
The leadership and other processes of the organ-
ization must be such as to ensure a maximum probability
that in all interactions and relationships within the
organization, each member, in the light of his back-
ground, values, desires, and expectations, will view
the experience as supportive and one which builds and
maintains his sense of personal worth and importance.
Recommendation 1: The administration and department
chairmen, should seek ideas from their subordin ates and use
them if worthy .
Motivation . The ari thme t ic mean o f the mo tiva t ion
area was 2.26, slightly below average. Both the question
on methods of motivation and responsibility for achieving .
goals were slightly to moderately below average .
Although motivation is only slightly below average - ;
it can still be Improved. Herzberg (16:57) shows that
achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement.
growth and the work itself are motivators. Less than
twenty percent of the faculty perceived that rewards and
involvement were used as motivators. Participation in the
governance system of an institution can be one of many ways
of achieving motivation. This is recognized by Joughin
(18:205) when he states, ^^he real question for an insti-
tution is what it can offer a man it wants to hold. Here
is where faculty participation in institutional government
can play a major part."
The behavioral scientist have added much to motiva-
tional theory. When Maslow (22:90) discusses the esteem
needs of an individual he uses terms such as achievement,
mastery, reputation,- and prestigue. Satisfaction of these
needs leads to a feeling of individual worth and of being
useful and necessary. When McGregor (24:56) ext^fends^
Maslow' s theory and discusses his Theory Y method of
management he states, "Theory Y assvimes that people will
exercise self direction and self-control in the achievement
of organizational objectives to the degree that they are
committed to those objectives." Both authors also discuss
the fact that commitment to objectives is related to the ,
amotttit of direct participation in the formulation of those
The discussion of the need for motivators in an
industrial setting can be extended to the academic insti-
tution. Likert (19:106) has discussed the implications of
the social scientist research in industry:
The highest productivity, best performance, and
highest earnings appear at present to be achieved by
System 4 [Participative] organizations. These organ-
izations mobilize both the noneconomic motives and
economic motives so that all available motivational
forces create cooperative behavior focused on achieving
the organizations* objectives a The enterprise is a
tightly knit, well-coordiwated organization of highly
motivated persons. As social science research makes
further substantial contributions to the art of manage-
ment, science-based systems even more productive than
System 4 are likely to be developed.
Recommendation 2. The faculty of the college should be
given some of the responsibility for achieving organizat -
ional goals. In particular^ those goals involving academic
matters should be the responsibility of the faculty .
Communication . The section of the survey on commun-
ication had the highest arithmetic mean, 2.55, of any
section. The two questions on the direction of flow of
communications and the acceptance of downward communications
were both well above average. The question on the accuracy
of upward communication received the highest mean, 3^00,
on the survey. This was probably due to the fact that those
being surveyed were responsible for the upward coniimmicat ion.
However, the question on ijuperiors knowledge of the problems
faced by subordinates was well below average.
Recommendation 3. All key administrators who do not now
teach should be required to teach r:: least one course per
Because of the high rating of this section it
appears that substantial improvement has been made in the
•commmication area since the Middle States Accreditation
Report of 1969 (36). One cannot however, underestimate
the importance of communication. Unruh (47:29) feels that
the failure to communicate accurately and effectively may
turn out to be the central problem of modem university
governance. This importance is again pointed out by Stroup
(45:117), "the problem of communications in the modem
college is formidable.... Yet, by means of effective
communication the machinery of the whole institutional
apparatus runs more smoothly."
Budig (6:39) has presented a very complete discus-
sion of what the faculty expectations are in the area of
Faculty require communicative skill in administra-
tors. They expect educational leaders who are articu-
late spokesmen for the faculty and institutional
interest. Beyond this ,. they also des ire adminis trat iye
leadership capable of* creating effective horizontal and
vertical communication patterns. Good horizontal
communication means effective communications from
faculty to faculty, among students, from one adminis-
trator to another. Effective upward vertical commun-
ication - a very real need of faculty - implies largely
passive communication skills of the administrator, such
as openness and willingness to listen to faculty view-
points on the part of a chairman or dean with some
evidence of feedback. Downward vertical communication
(dedn to chairmen, administrator to faculty, faculty to
student) ordinarily requires a higher proportion of the
more active communication skills.
The problems of organizational coordination and
problem solving both involve communication. The differences
are pointed out by many authors. Richardson in (38:19) and
again in (^2:90), and Blau and Scott who conclude thier
findings on communication by writing:
A hierarchical organization, in part precisely
because it restricts the free flow of communications,
improves coordination; indeed, it seems to be essential
for effective coordination of group effort * This is the
. dilemma posed by hierarchical differentiation: while it
is necessary for coordination, it blocks communication
processes that are vital for stimulating initiative and
Interaction . The section of the survey concerned
with interaction was average with an arithmetic mean of
2.35. The question on the characteristics of the interaction
was well below average showing some fear and distrust was
Recommendation 4. More interaction between faculty, students
administrators and trustees should occur.
The question on cooperative teamwork was well above average
Richardson (42:28) discusses the need for interac-
tion as follows:
As important as it is to prevent conflict or to
resolve conflict, the interaction of administrative
and governance structures may have a still more
role. The ability of an institution to use its resour-
ces effectively for goal attainment depends upon the
existence of a satisfactory degree of congruence
between the objectives of the institution and the attit
udes of its constituencies. The involvement of all
constituencies in goal identification, program plan-
ning, and evaluation can be a powerful force in shaping
Likert (19:29) presents this on a broader scale. He
discusses that all members of an organization and their
collective capacity for effective interaction, communi-
cation, and decision making are reflected in the internal
state and health of the organization.
Decision-Making . The section of the survey that
concerned decision-making received the lowest arithmetic
mean of all sections, 2.17. Question twelve, on the level
of decision making, was the lowest rated question on the
questionnaire, 1.62. The question on the origin of back-
eround information used to make decisions was also below
average.. The question on subordinate involvement and the
use of decision-making as a motivational tool were both
The results of question thirty demonstrate that
the faculty perceived that they were involved in the
decision process but that the final decision was made by
top administrators. This was also a major criticism of
the Middle States Accreditation Report of 1971 (37:3).
The faculty also perceives that they are not consulted
enough in the decision-making process.
Recommendation 5. All decisions should be made at the
appropriate levels, involving those most qualified to
make the decision .
Recommendation 6. When a decision is reached at any point
in the organization, it should be brought to the prompt
attention of all those who will be affected .
Recommendation 7. When differences of opinion exist on
the propriety of a decision a method of mediation should
be formed .
Several authors have presented general discussions
of decision-making. Among them are Corson (9: 10-12) ,
Likert (20), Stroup (45), Richardson (42:87-90), and
Henderson (15:80). Budig (6:33) presents the facult
expectations on decision-making in the following manner:
Faculty reasonably expect that decisions will be
made by administrative officers and that these deci-
sions will be fair and just. The absence of decisions
is an abdication of leadership which no faculty will
long tolerate. A series of decisions unacceptable to
the faculty simply requires new leadership. Ultimately,
the requirements of "fairness" and "justice". in decis-
ion-making includes (1) a freedom from personal bias or
personal benefit resulting from the decision; (2) a
deliberate weighing of alternatives, including an
openness to consideration of the relative merits (or
disadvantages) of possible courses of action; (3) the
existence of a fairly explicit value system upon which
decisions are based; and when necessary, (4) the will-
ingness to explain the rational basis for a decision.
Implicit in these requirements is the understanding
that values upon which decisions are premised are
widely shared in the group. A basic value widely
shared in any academic community is a commitment to
rationality and open deliberations as a means of
improving the human condition. Thus the arbitrary
(unilateral) decision is per se viewed as the unjust
or "unfair" administrative decision. A faculty member
will generally accept a decision, even if he disagrees,
if he feels he has had the opportunity to participate
meaningfully in the deliberations prior to the decision
and if he can require a rational defense from his
Setting Goals . The section of the questionnaire
concerning setting goals had an arithmetic mean of 2.52.
This was well above average and second highest on the
survey. The two questions on how the goals are established
and the resistance to these goals both were well above
Recommendation 8. The faculty should be more involved in
determining the goals of the institution .
The research that has been presented relating to
business, industry and the social sciences has demonstrated
that in order to effectively reach organizational goals
there must occur participation in the establishment of
those goals* The tradition of collegiality in colleges
has been strong. The faculty tend to think of themselves
as peers of administrators, Afterall the business of
education takes place in the classroom. The professor
must play a strong role in determining the over-all goals
of the institution.
Feedback Control , The section of the survey that
concerned feedback control had an arithmetic mean of 2,25,
slightly below average. The question on the existence of
a resisting informal organization was well aboye average.
Several of the surveys identified the local chapter of the
American Association of University Professors, which consist
of about thirty-five percent of the faculty, as an informal
organization resisting the administration.
The question on the use of productivity informatiori 4
was slightly below average while the question on the review
and control function was well below average; . ; ■ :
During the past two years theire has been much cleba^
on the role of the department VchairiMn, ,T*ieir; role has^been|
and still is chiefly clerical. There have been some
changes to make the chairmanship more decisive but it is
still felt that there is too much administrative control,
TJxis was probably the reason for the faculty perceiving
the review and control functions were concentrated toward
the top levels of administration.
Recommendation 9, The department chairmen should be given
broader and more definitive powers when dealing with
faculty and departmental concerns .
The feedback system is used to regulate the intern-
relationships within the structure of the college. The
control of the feedback system ultimatly affects the com-
munication networks, interaction of the individual members,
decision-making and the overall operation of the institution.
The following recommendations are made in the hope
that they will help in making the goveraance^^stnicture^^a
York College of Pennsylvania more participatory,;
1, The administration and department chairmen
should, seek ideas from their subordinates and us,6 : them' ^
2. The faculty of the college should be given
of the responsibility for achieving organizational goals.
In particular, those goals involving academic matters sho^
be the responsibility of the faculty.
3. All key administrators who do not now teach
should be required to teach at least one course per year.
4. More interaction between faculty, students,
administrators and trustees should occur.
5. All decisions should be made at the appropria*^^
levels, involving those most qualified to make the decisi^^'
6« When a decision is reached at any point in th^
organization, it should be brought to the prompt attentio<^
of all those who will be affected.
7. When differences of opinion exist on the
propiety of a decision a method of mediation should be
8. The faculty should be more involved in deter-
mining the is of the institution.
9. The department chairmen should be given
broader and more definitive powers when dealing with
faculty and departmental concerns.
^^Chf«8h the overall
used As ^ ^'^^^^^^^^^ for comparison it should not be consid-
ered A Q^^^^^^"*"^ Average. It lies somewhere between the
benevQlj^t^C ****^^°^^tive and consultative methods of manage-
ment, from being Considered a pa^^^^^^P^tive
struct:^:^:^. ^^nce ^^^jj £,f the current liter^iture points
toward ^ ^t^^'^^^'^^thority foxm of govejmance there seem to
be majcj:^: pt^^^^^^ Heeded to achieve this. It is hoped that
the r^cW^*^'*^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^° achieve this goal.
stio^Id ^3^go be pointed out that some changes to
improve t^*^ ^^^^^ti^g structure ha^e been made, some as
recent; ^^^t year. Perhaps the existing structure
is aU^^^j/ S'^^^^cient and it will gradually o»o^® toward a
parti<id^)^i;^^ system. Most of the authors o^t that
it is <7^t^^ ^ ^^^iod of years before change^ ^^^e i^ a
struct^:t^ ^^"^^ effect on the participants. Ness (31:40)
states^ ••^^'^^^^^P^tion is not a theoretic problem but an
difference between what the factjlty perceives,
the a(bit^,i^*^^^^^°ti perceives and what actuary ®*^ist could
vary ^^r^^C^^' "^^re has always been a confli^*^ «nd probably
always ^ conflict between faculty and adminigtr-
tion. 'xii^ P^^^leia is pointed out by Mortlioer (30:482) :
Those who yearn for peace in colleges and univer-
sities will find it a relative condition. Institutions
of higher education will have to learn to live with
more or less permanent conflict and seek to make them
serve the organization rather than destroy it.
While the administration is concerned with control, plan-
ning, commjtmication and coordination it is the faculty who
must reassume the leadership of the traditional collegial
function, a role made even more critical by the necessity
for the administration to involve itself almost entirely
with management. Olsen (32:364).
While it is recognized that all institutions can
be improved, it is now always appropriate to compare a
college to a theoretical model. It is important to keep a
comparison such as this one in perspective. There is no
such place as the ideal college.
McGeorge Bundy (7:47) has an insight into the role
of the faculty when he states:
I believe trustees will continue to have a major
role in the institution, and the readiness of the
students for a greater share of the responsibility,
whatever its Immediate and temporary explosiveness,
should be a gain for the university as a whole. But
in the end, and xmrepentantly, I insist. on the faculty ♦
as the center. Trustees give time and money and advice
and external support of all sorts; students spend some
years here. But for the members of the £«culty the i,
university is life Itself. This centtat commitment is 1;.
what justifies their central role, and in their effective
relations with the preisldency is the center of the
politics of the modem university, J
Allan, George. "Twixt Terror and Thermidor:. Reflections
on Campus Governance," The Journal of Higher Education ,
April, 1971, 292-308.
The American Association of University Professors.
"The Place and Function of Faculties in College and
University Government," AAUP Bulletin . March 1955,
. "Report of the Survey Subcommittee of
Committee T," AAUP Bulletin . Summer, 1969, 180-185.
Aristotle. Poetics , trans. E. Barker. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1962.
Blau, Peter M., and Richard W. Scott. Formal
Organization . San Francisco: Chandler Publishing
Budig, Gene A., and Stanley G. Rives. Academic
Quicksand: Some Trends and Issues in Higher Education .
Lincoln, Nebraska: Professional Educators Publications,
Bundy, McGeorge. "Faculty Power," Atlantic, September,
The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Governance
of Higher Education: Six Priority Problems . New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.
Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities- .
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960.
. "The Modernization of the University: the ■
Impac t of Function on Governance ." The Journal of Higher;
Education, June, 1971, 430-441.
11. "Data Presented for Consideration by the Commission
on Institutions of Higher Education, Middle States
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 1968,"
York College of Pennsylvania,
12. Dodds, Harold W. The Academic President; Educator or
Caretaker ? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962.
13. Dykes, Archie R. Faculty Participation in Academic .
Decision Making . Washington D.C.: American Council on
14. Fogarty, Robert S. "The Good "Place or No Place:
Communication on the Campus," In Search of leaders .
G. Kerry Smith, ed. Washington D. C: American
Association for Higher Education, 1967.
15. Henderson, Algo D. "Effective Models of Onivetsity
Governance," In Search of Leaders . G. Kerry Smith, ed.
Washington D. C. : American Association for Higher
16. Herzberg, Frederick, "One More Time; How Do You
Motivate Employees?", Harvard Business Review ,
January-February, 1968^ 53-57.
17. Ikenberry, Stanley 0. "Restructuring the Governance
• of Higher Education," AAUP Bulletin . December, 1970,
18. Joughin, Louis. "Faculty Participation in University
or College Governance," Current Issues in Higher
Education . G. Kerry Smith, ed. Washington D. C:
American Association for Higher Education, 1966.
19. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization . New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
20. . New Patterns of Management . New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.
21. Livingston, John C. "Faculty and Administrative Rolea
in Decision Making," Stress and Campus R esponse.
G. Kerry Smith, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc,,
22. ; Mas low, A. H. M otivation and Personality ^ New York:
Harper and Brothers Publishing Co,, 1954*
23* Mason, Henry L* College and University Government s
Vol. XIV, Tulane Studies in Political Science ,
New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1972.
24. McGregor, Douglas* The Htunan Side of Enterprise ,
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960.
25. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and
Prospect . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960o
16. Miller, Ray Ao "The Presidents Report, 1973-74,'"
York College of Pennsylvania «
27. . "The Presidents Report, 1974-75," York
College of Pennsylvania.
28. Millett, John D. The Academic Community . New York:
The MacMillian Company, 1957.
29. Moellenberg, Wayne P. . "The Hazards of Academic
Administration," Intellect , February, 1976, 374-378.
30. Mortimer, Kenneth P. "The Dilemmas in New Campus
Governance Structures," The Journal of Higher Education ,
' June, 1971, 467-482.
31. Ness, Frederic W. "Campus Governance and Fiscal
Stability," Efficient College Mananement ^ William W.
Jellema, ed. San Francisco: Josey^Bass inc., 1972.
32. Olsen, James K. "Governance by Confrontation:
Adversarialism at the University,"' Intellect , March,
1974, 361-364. .
33. Pfnister, Allan 0. "The Role of Faculty in University
Governance," The Journal of Higher Education , June,
34. Pollay, Richard Wo, Ronald N. Taylor and Mark Tompson.
"A Model for Horizontal Power Sharing and Participation
in University Decision -Making," The Journal of Higher
Education , March/April, 1976, 131-157.
35. Reddin, William J. Managerial Effectiveness . New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.
36. "Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees of
York Junior College, York, Pennsylvania By an
Evaluation Team Representing the Middle States
Commission on Institutions of Higher Education After
Study of the Institution's Self-Evaluation and a Visit
to. the Campus on February 16-19, 1969," Charles W.
Laffin, Jr., Chairman.
37. "A Report From The Evaluation Team Who Visited York
College of Pennsylvania on October 10-13, 1971,"
To the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle
States Association. Adolph G. Anderson, Chairman.
38. Richardson, Richard C. Jr. "Needed: New Directions
in Administration," Junior College Journal , March,
39^ , "Restructuring in Himian Dimensions of Our
Colleges," Junior College Journal , February, 1971,
40, , "Governance Theory: A Comparison of
Approaches," The Journal of Higher Education , May,
41, and Louis W. Bender. College Governance .
2d. ed. Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Nova University,
42. _, Clyde E. Blocker and Louis W. Bender.
Governance for the Two-Year College . Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1972.
43. Riess, Louis C. "Institutional Attitudes Relating to
Faculty Participation in California Coimmanity College '
Governance," A Doctorial Dissertation, 1970.
44 Smith, Bardwell and Robert Reitz. "Authority, Shared
and Increased," Liberal Education , December 1970,
Stroup, Herbert. Bureaucracy in Higher Education .
New York: The Free Press, 1966.
Thompson, Dennis F. "Democracy and the Governing of
the University," The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science , Richard D. Lambert,
ed., November 1972, 157-169.
Unruh, Jesse M. "California Higher Education: A
Report from the Under grovind." In Search of Leaders .
G. Kerry Smith, ed, . Washington D. C . : American
Association for Higher Education, 1967.
^RC>FILE OF ORGANIZATIONAI. CHARACTERISTICS
II HoM much conl^dpnct j» \t%o^
Ho¥9 frw do they (Ml to talk
to luptMoo stsout job'
Not at all
Arf tubordin«i»t' id««ft
sou^hi ^d ui*d. il fNOtxt>^>
It pf edoiDin^ni utC rrwide of
U tear, 2) Ihretlt. 3) puniin-
4. »ofne 3
4. torne 3 a^J 5
5,4. bated on
group let QOait
rmnt. 4) rt¥*»cd». 5) mvolvemtnt?
IVhtrt It rtiponiilxliiv (tit
Moiily al top
Top a>Hj mtdcttf
At ail leveit
What it tht dt^. o( mfo. VIqm?
' Motlty downward
Down and up
Down, up, ft tidewayt
How It downvM/d comm. accepted?
Pou, With ftutpicion
With open m<nd
How accurate it upward comm.?
Ceniorcd (or bOit
9} How wvll do tuperiort know
probtemt faced by tubordmatet'
10} What tt character of mier-
Little, alwavi w*th Little, utualiy with
fear anddittruti lome condetcmtiort
Mod.. often farr ami.
conf»denc« and trult
ERtentive. h*9h decree
confid. & trust
1 1 1 How much cooperative teamwork
Very tubttantiai amt.
throughout organ .
Pn>'fv ai top Scr.^v
Bioad po<*cv at top.
I! il t*>i* 0»»9"> r»l wchn^c*'
in (1<'Cit*on rrwik oij^
To Cf rta»n e^tfri
To J 9rpat f<r^x
Ah#i dt>ei deciv o" rnjk.ng (xo-
crM CT.»nif»ixj»e 10 rnol»w*t«on'
How3»f o*3 goati pi:at>iii^7d'
Orrfcfi. Gome comrn inM
All. a*ic. by ordert
G'oupacticxi (««cept cnt^t)
How much covert rei»tTarce
to goait It ptrt^nt '
Sirortg rei ir^'^Cr
Little 01 nore
How conc^nitat^rt are t^vt^
and co'^irol f jnctionv'
H jhtv at tn;}
Retativety high at top
:o lo.^ irveit
Quite Widely shared
Il :ne»f jn •r»iorrTvl orv«ir>i/J*ion
'ei.ti.nq thr larmjl on*>
■• ' y^y^k
Wh.i! aie cci', p*oiJuCTtvttv.
a'v. ^"^er control dat j u\ed lor >
Htf^a'd. tome teif-
Flu. 3.1 PKirMi.K or ()R(.AM/\nONAL (;MAR^i:i>RI%1!iA ''' ' [^.-r^^^^jii^
Suuut ¥tttm f hr Hunan UfUf^uiztitnm 1»\ Rciui^ Likcii, (.opui^iit t^, l»Hi7 \t\ Mif.i.tu Il.M. Inc. lJu\l by prrmi^^iori of McCmwHiU BolA Comp«nyJ;.;^||
York College, o:? FeMiisyj-vsr/ia
A-o:-:iI ?:9, 1976
CO rag a vasearch project cn f-aculuy •pe/.'csption of^
coiXeSG SGvcK'-'ncnceo The 5i:i:r.c:I-ed eaest^oniicv.lre xrxll be used
GS irr/ i-assav.::5ais tool, I sa hopiiig t'ae vesults will be of
value to both t'as adainistr-ation. e.vA the fsuiiityo
*Xt is rsal?J2ed that you are very busy azid the time spent
by you. in filling out this form siid rsturniiis it to my through
inter- office raail is' an itnpos5,tion on youo Ko-vever, the final
study could prcr.^e to be ia^J^ortsnt in xnaking governance changes
at ou.r cjollegeo
On the att£iclied fora tLisre c.::q sa-.-an areas of concern to
Sovsrnanceo Er:ch erea has ssveral quastions designed to eval-
u=^teo ?lcase circle one 'of the four cascjriptors following the
question that you feel best c"::-: scribes the gover.v.iince system at
S^j-uply s^::^-ed, X riec^d your help (Vc^itheri^S luy data and
*c:culd a p;:o}ar)\: reply «
LS-45 ; ^